I'm delighted at all the lively comments. I realize I should have made one thing clearer: Populism is about the voters, not the presidents or candidates. The latter are always elites of one sort or another, if only by virtue of being presidents or presidential candidates. They present themselves as tribunes of the people, some - Jackson, Bryan - more persuasively than others - Trump. It's the anti-elite mood of voters that makes populism populism.
With genuine respect, Prof. Brands, I believe that giving Trump and his Republican acolytes the cover of “populism” for their ugly fascism does real damage to our current political discourse and trajectory. Trump’s faux populism is actually about claiming to speak for “the people” while giving massive tax cuts to millionaires and setting policies and appointing judges to favor the interests of multinational corporations - even as he rails against “globalism” (which is just shorthand for Jews, intellectuals and progressives, not actual economic elites).
The idea that billionaire Trump with his golden toilet seats is in any way against actual elites is laughable. Do you remember how many billionaires he appointed to his cabinet? Literally the only example of economic populism you were able to come up with is tariffs, but that could much more logically and reasonably be explained as part of the xenophobia that is the core of his appeal to “the people.”
I implore academics and commentators to call a spade a spade and call out the current Republican neo-fascism as what it actually is, without giving it a pretty veneer like populism.
While you may be correct and you certainly have spent more time in and around the nation’s Capitol than I, I respectfully request that you reread the first paragraph and the last sentence of today’s essay by Prof. Brands. Then reread the entire essay substituting your label “fascism” for “populism.” When I just did, the essay no longer “sang” and its conclusion (“Populism is as much a mood as it is an agenda. Sometimes parts of the agenda stick. The mood always passes.”) no longer speaks to me.
On a more provincial basis, staying too close for too long within the confines of Austin, the Capitol of Texas, adds a shade to my photochromatic glass lenses which a long drive in the country soon wipes off without even having to use the microfiber cloth that came with the glasses case.
I get the point, but populism has traditionally had an actual meaning beyond just being a “mood”, and that has involved marrying the popular anger at actual elites with policies to reduce the power of rise elites to the benefit of the people.
When academics and the media define populism carelessly, that opens the door for actual exploitative elites to redirect people’s anger to the targets those elites want to harm - usually the actual inheritors of the populist legacy of Teddy Roosevelt, et al, who ironically are trying to rein in the true out of control elites.
So you end up with poor people rooting for policies that make them poorer, more frustrated and anger. Calling that populism just encourages such deceit.
Well said. I recall once one of Trump's acolytes calling him a "blue collar billionaire" and a comedian said "you know that's not a thing, right?"
Trump even bungled the tariff issue with China, forcing American farmers to scrap tons of food items they would have sold to China and then getting reimbursed by the federal government- that's not how tariffs are supposed to work! Tariffs are legitimate if the protect a nascent industry from foreign cheaper competition until they can stand on their own. Trump thought he was punishing China. It's all performative. China became the foreign boogyman because of Trump's fealty to Russia
Thank you for your perspective and context. I would be curious about the role of anti-American rhetoric (and perhaps true adherence to same), likewise the fascistic statements and broadsides thrown out into the public sphere.
Real populism left us with direct election of senators, social security (FDR), trust busting (Teddy), and the civil rights movement. Faux populism is cover for permanent tax cuts for the corporations, continued corporate mergers, and demonizing foreigners
What Jennings and populists wanted was an expansion of the money supply. Because we had a "hard money" system which restricted the amount of money in circulation due to having to match the amount of gold in the treasury, adding silver as a backing for money (Free Silver movement) would immediately expand the money supply and stimulate growth. It also devalued the dollar to some extent which means people pay their debts with lower value currency- hence the Cross of Gold speech and the attacks on the financial sector who wanted hard money and scarce money- it hasn't changed. Anecdotally every financial crisis seems to be cause by Wall St greed and financial manipulations.
I'm delighted at all the lively comments. I realize I should have made one thing clearer: Populism is about the voters, not the presidents or candidates. The latter are always elites of one sort or another, if only by virtue of being presidents or presidential candidates. They present themselves as tribunes of the people, some - Jackson, Bryan - more persuasively than others - Trump. It's the anti-elite mood of voters that makes populism populism.
With genuine respect, Prof. Brands, I believe that giving Trump and his Republican acolytes the cover of “populism” for their ugly fascism does real damage to our current political discourse and trajectory. Trump’s faux populism is actually about claiming to speak for “the people” while giving massive tax cuts to millionaires and setting policies and appointing judges to favor the interests of multinational corporations - even as he rails against “globalism” (which is just shorthand for Jews, intellectuals and progressives, not actual economic elites).
The idea that billionaire Trump with his golden toilet seats is in any way against actual elites is laughable. Do you remember how many billionaires he appointed to his cabinet? Literally the only example of economic populism you were able to come up with is tariffs, but that could much more logically and reasonably be explained as part of the xenophobia that is the core of his appeal to “the people.”
I implore academics and commentators to call a spade a spade and call out the current Republican neo-fascism as what it actually is, without giving it a pretty veneer like populism.
While you may be correct and you certainly have spent more time in and around the nation’s Capitol than I, I respectfully request that you reread the first paragraph and the last sentence of today’s essay by Prof. Brands. Then reread the entire essay substituting your label “fascism” for “populism.” When I just did, the essay no longer “sang” and its conclusion (“Populism is as much a mood as it is an agenda. Sometimes parts of the agenda stick. The mood always passes.”) no longer speaks to me.
On a more provincial basis, staying too close for too long within the confines of Austin, the Capitol of Texas, adds a shade to my photochromatic glass lenses which a long drive in the country soon wipes off without even having to use the microfiber cloth that came with the glasses case.
I get the point, but populism has traditionally had an actual meaning beyond just being a “mood”, and that has involved marrying the popular anger at actual elites with policies to reduce the power of rise elites to the benefit of the people.
When academics and the media define populism carelessly, that opens the door for actual exploitative elites to redirect people’s anger to the targets those elites want to harm - usually the actual inheritors of the populist legacy of Teddy Roosevelt, et al, who ironically are trying to rein in the true out of control elites.
So you end up with poor people rooting for policies that make them poorer, more frustrated and anger. Calling that populism just encourages such deceit.
Pardon all the typos. I shouldn’t type on my phone…
Well said. I recall once one of Trump's acolytes calling him a "blue collar billionaire" and a comedian said "you know that's not a thing, right?"
Trump even bungled the tariff issue with China, forcing American farmers to scrap tons of food items they would have sold to China and then getting reimbursed by the federal government- that's not how tariffs are supposed to work! Tariffs are legitimate if the protect a nascent industry from foreign cheaper competition until they can stand on their own. Trump thought he was punishing China. It's all performative. China became the foreign boogyman because of Trump's fealty to Russia
Thank you for your perspective and context. I would be curious about the role of anti-American rhetoric (and perhaps true adherence to same), likewise the fascistic statements and broadsides thrown out into the public sphere.
Real populism left us with direct election of senators, social security (FDR), trust busting (Teddy), and the civil rights movement. Faux populism is cover for permanent tax cuts for the corporations, continued corporate mergers, and demonizing foreigners
What Jennings and populists wanted was an expansion of the money supply. Because we had a "hard money" system which restricted the amount of money in circulation due to having to match the amount of gold in the treasury, adding silver as a backing for money (Free Silver movement) would immediately expand the money supply and stimulate growth. It also devalued the dollar to some extent which means people pay their debts with lower value currency- hence the Cross of Gold speech and the attacks on the financial sector who wanted hard money and scarce money- it hasn't changed. Anecdotally every financial crisis seems to be cause by Wall St greed and financial manipulations.